Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th July, 2026
MOHD. JAMIL ANSARI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Uday Bedi, Advocate (through V.C.)
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner seeks early hearing.
2. Mr. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has appeared through video-conferencing, submits that the learned Trial Court has already closed prosecution evidence and the case is now fixed for Defence Evidence on 31st instant.
3. For the reason assigned in the application and the urgency cited, the application is allowed and the case is taken up today itself.
4. The next fixed date i.e. 09.10.2026 stands cancelled.
5. The point involved is very short.
6. The victim of the sexual assault in question entered into witness box as PW-3 on 14.10.2024 and after her examination-in-chief was over, learned prosecutor sought permission to put certain leading questions to her as she had not deposed about the complete facts. Such request was allowed and, thereafter, when defence counsel started cross-examining the abovesaid witness, learned Trial Court got irked for the reason that certain irrelevant CRL.M.C. 9914/2024 2 questions were being put and, resultantly, right to further cross-examination was closed abruptly.
7. Such order is under challenge
8. This Court has gone through the evidence-sheet and quite clearly, some of the questions could not have been disallowed as these were, indeed, having some relevance.
9. Moreover, merely because certain irrelevant questions had been put, learned Trial Court, in a serious matter like the present one, could not have, in a cursory manner, closed the right of the defence to cross-examine the witness.
10. Needless to say, if defence is not permitted to put relevant questions and its essential defence, it would cause serious prejudice to the concerned accused.
11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and learned Trial Court would permit the accused to cross-examine the abovesaid witness by affording one effective opportunity. Learned counsel for petitioner assures and undertakes that only relevant question would put to the witness.
12. Learned Trial Court would be at liberty to decide about the relevancy of any proposed question but in case it comes to conclusion that the question is irrelevant, it would specify the reasons thereof.
13. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JULY 14, 2026/ss/sa